2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*46 Respondent's motion for summary judgment granted.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
THORNTON, Judge: Respondent has moved for summary judgment on the question of whether respondent may proceed with collection of petitioner's outstanding tax liabilities for tax years 1994 through 1997.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.
As discussed in detail below, we conclude that there is no dispute as to any material fact and that respondent is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Background
On September 8, 1987, the Circuit Court for the County of Midland, Michigan, entered a judgment of divorce between petitioner and her former husband, Forrest Stark (the divorce judgment). The divorce judgment ordered, inter alia, that permanent alimony be awarded to petitioner in the amount of $ 1,000 per month.
Petitioner2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*48 made several unsuccessful appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court regarding her divorce. See
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*49 Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 1994 showing tax liability, but she did not remit payment for the reported liability. Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 1996, but not for 1995 or 1997.
On June 21, 1999, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency for 1995, 1996, and 1997, determining income tax deficiencies of $ 7,054, $ 6,305, and $ 6,711, respectively, plus additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 for 1995 and 1997. Petitioner did not petition this Court for redetermination.
On March 29, 1999, respondent assessed the unpaid tax liability reported on petitioner's 1994 tax return, plus penalties and interest. On February 7, 2000, respondent assessed the income tax deficiencies and additions to tax, plus interest, as determined in the notice of deficiency for 1995, 1996, and 1997.
On June 15, 2000, respondent sent petitioner a Final Notice -- Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing, regarding petitioner's 1994 through 1997 income tax liabilities. On July 12, 2000, petitioner submitted to respondent a Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing. On the Form 12153, the only issue that petitioner raised2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*50 was whether payments received from her former husband were taxable to her as alimony.
On April 10, 2001, an administrative hearing was held between petitioner and respondent's Appeals officer (the administrative hearing). On April 30, 2002, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 (notice of determination) regarding petitioner's 1994 through 1997 tax liabilities. In the notice of determination, respondent determined that all applicable legal and administrative procedures had been met and that collection actions could proceed against petitioner. The notice of determination states: "The underlying tax liability is correct. You were divorced and the alimony payments received from your former husband are properly included into income."
On June 3, 2002, this Court received from petitioner, who then resided in Independence, Missouri, a letter which the Court treated as a timely imperfect petition for review of respondent's notice of determination. On June 26, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition. In her amended petition, petitioner states that she "does not contest the tax owed or any additions to the tax2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*51 for penalty or interest. The petitioner merely states that the IRS is billing the wrong person for the taxes owed for the years 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997." She contends that the Midland County, Michigan, circuit judge who signed the divorce judgment had been "previously disqualified from making any further rulings between the two parties." Thus, she contends, there was "No legal divorce" and consequently "no alimony" to be included in her taxable income.
Discussion
If any person neglects or refuses to make payment of any Federal tax liability within 10 days of notice and demand, the Secretary is authorized to collect the tax by levy on the person's property.
The only issue petitioner has raised is whether payments received from her former husband pursuant to a disputed divorce judgment should be included in her taxable income. Respondent argues that in the circumstances of this2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*53 case,
Under
In effect, having failed to achieve satisfaction in her numerous appeals to the Michigan Supreme Court, petitioner seeks to relitigate her domestic relations dispute here. We decline to inject ourselves into this Michigan domestic2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*54 relations dispute.
Marital relationships are peculiarly creatures of State law.
Petitioner's divorce judgment was entered in Midland County, Michigan, on September 8, 1987. Although petitioner has contested the validity of the divorce judgment, no State court has overturned it. To the contrary, between 1988 and 1992, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected petitioner's several appeals relating to her divorce. 3Principles of collateral estoppel and full faith and credit counsel that we respect the State court judgments. See
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*55 The petition does not explicitly raise a request for equitable relief under
Petitioner has failed to make a valid challenge to the appropriateness of respondent's intended collection action. She has raised no issue in this proceeding regarding any offer of an alternative means of collection. 4 These issues are now deemed conceded.
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and decision will be entered granting respondent's motion for2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*56 summary judgment.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.↩
2. On petitioner's Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process Hearing, dated July 12, 2000, petitioner contended that her divorce was invalid and stated that her "case is now in Federal Court." We take judicial notice that on July 12, 2000, the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered an order granting the State of Michigan's motion to dismiss the action filed by petitioner in Stark v. Michigan, No. 00-CV- 10066 (E.D. Mich., filed Feb. 23, 2000).↩
3. Notably, in
4. After the administrative hearing, petitioner submitted an offer in compromise to respondent but withdrew it before respondent issued the notice of determination.↩